Hi all. I am new to this forum and enthusiast for Ecclesiastical Latin. I did research on the differences between Ecclesiastical and Classical pronunciation, watch some videos and come to the conclusion that the latter is mostly a reconstructed version while the former has more substantial bearing in terms of uninterrupted chains from the Church way of pronouncing it.
I understand there are two camps in this regard, but I hope we will have cordial and polite discussion on this.
Thanks.
While I personally attend the Latin Mass and highly prefer Ecclesiastical pronunciation, there is certainly strong evidence that classical pronunciation is fairly accurate, at least with regard to the area of the city of Rome itself during a certain period of time. Latin was spoken by a considerable population across portions of three continents, so dialectal variation was inevitable, and it was likely pronounced differently in different parts of the Empire/Republic. Ecclesiastical pronunciation could have evolved from one of these regional varieties, or its pronunciation could have been codified during a stage of Vulgar Latin where the pronunciation was evolving to resemble that of the modern Italo-Dalmatian languages. Either way in my mind it doesn’t much matter. Both systems are valid, and you can use whichever you like, though admittedly sometimes using the “wrong” style can sound awkward. Singing Gregorian chant using CP would sound stilted, and would throw off the rhythm.
Thanks Fuerza. I do noticed the differences and prefer the Ecclesiastical pronunciation. Why is that the classical pronunciation is also labeled as “reconstructed pronunciation”? Which Latin pronunciation was used in the fourth century Rome when Saint Jerome translated the Holy Bible from Greek to Vulgar Latin?
Yes, I had wondered about this myself! About it being passed on for so many years by the Church, while the rest of the people stopped using it and were just guessing (or just translating and not really speaking aloud), though I think some ancient writers talked about pronunciation here and there, or complained about people pronouncing things certain ways.
It’s been a while since I was really good with Latin and I will need to research these things further. But as Fuerza said, both are valid, just different.
I haven’t been to a Latin Mass lately, but I recall being 10 or 12 years old, and being one of the few in the congregation who understood what the priest was saying! It was a pretty cool feeling, being able to follow what was going on. And going to churches in Europe later and reading Latin inscriptions on things. So that kind of instilled a certain feeling on the Ecclesiastical pronunciation in me as a kid.
My grandfather’s best friend was a priest, which was also lucky for me when it came to discussing these things with him in an informal setting (like over dinner, not in church).
But I suppose it’s like any other language, a certain group speaks it one way, another speaks it slightly differently, whether pronunciation or vocabulary. Like when I was in Germany, in some places we’d buy Semmeln, other places, Brötchen, but we’d get the same sort of bread roll in either case!
Ave et pax vobiscum!
As you can tell from my salutation I was exposed to Latin via the Mass too!
I have a theory which may be wrong, but I think Ecclesiastical Latin is actually the descendant of the Latin more genuinely and naturally spoken by ancient Romans.
However, the patricians, in order to distinguish themselves from the plebs, began to modify their speech by adopting some Hellenisms, because Greek was the prestige language for a time (late Republic through early Empire) and Greece had kind of like the relationship to Rome that Britain has to us in the US.
Thus, because Greek doesn’t have a “ch” ot “ts”sound, classy “Kikero” would say “dona nobis pakem” had he lived in Christian Rome, post Constantine, whereas the Roman pleb would say it as we do in the Agnus Dei “dona nobis pachem/patsem.”
So just like Ivy Leaguers FDR and JFK spoke quasi-British (so called Mid- Atlantic) English, the classier Romans, “Kikero and the Kaisers” spoke quasi-Hellenic Latin.
And Ecclesiastical Latin outlives Classical (which had to be artificially resurrected) because EL evolved from the Roman commoners, and “beati pauperes” and “humiles possidebunt terram.”
MODS AND EXPERTS FEEL FREE TO CORRECT OR CRITIQUE! I don’t want to spread any myths or disinformation and the above is just my hunch